Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 04:03:53 +0000
Subject: Re: Why a time of the real world must be galilean (motion, Mach-ian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <180fc4a84f1891a8$1162$1228337$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <18100e2d5ddd2efe$37$1234847$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <nacLK33QPu6-kSUxgE1MTKM29wU@jntp>
 <1810396c90cd5e45$3874$1234847$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <u7NvhHcfrBd_GXJLccUViHRQ17g@jntp>
 <18103c11c4399e1b$3635$1228337$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <ZmSFX2R-ovBoEMObJLiwLJMFGUQ@jntp>
 <181050bd5e899136$3636$1228337$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <gS3CnAvH7iZAR8z2fpZ16WpwAQI@jntp>
 <181154a9986e9f2f$4267$1238888$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <WaumABhKFsF-a7vEtKketJC1SU8@jntp>
 <18115e21819b88b8$3999$1258271$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <wTCUwiP8r_6HV9_JWjpnDzzrCS8@jntp>
 <1811706c300cfbc4$3891$1234847$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <TOUnAg2Ped0qmfbpGFGHi5K3c70@jntp> <676005cc$0$5206$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
 <1811a604ad74e4e9$3898$1234847$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <67601ad9$0$16845$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
 <iH-dnerZ8IKiXP36nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <qvacnZicIKDQaf36nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 20:04:00 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <qvacnZicIKDQaf36nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <qdGdnQbqPre0Zf36nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 1255
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0XCXE/ckkf8EodsID1U48yOzOxn+BMtbdAIlQ49ecquiDWxLJAY4aWzeNM0ibWfujZjzJ3I1s8QC2sX!7RETLJQIo1oEmHNJITDtArUILVZT7ketZW1e9vAJgtJC9bQy1nodhnL0GhcCC4Y/gJFO42sVj9O0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 60440

On 12/16/2024 07:47 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 12/16/2024 04:09 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 12/16/2024 04:19 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> W dniu 16.12.2024 o 11:49, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The genial insight that Einstein started to have in 1905
>>>>
>>>> The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is an inherent property of the space-time we find ourselves in,
>>>>
>>>> It may be an inherent property of the space-time your
>>>> bunch of idiots find yourselves in; it is no way an
>>>> inherent property of the space-time sane people
>>>> find themselves in.
>>>
>>> You should rejoice instead. Since the whole framework of the world
>>> and all physical theories must conform to the relativity postulate
>>> it should be real easy to find falsifications of it.
>>>
>>> Easy, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>> (not holding my breath)
>>>
>>
>> You mean that motion is relative? That motion exists at all?
>>
>> That's all that "relativity" theory is, that motion
>> is relative, yet as well, in the Mach-ian, is that
>> there's motion that's absolute, sort of about
>> the star and pole-star, the frames,
>> the frame-spaces the space-frames.
>>
>> You mean the L-principle that light's speed is
>> constant in a deep space in vacuum? That's the
>> L-principle as with regards to it being part
>> of "relativity theory" it would have a mechanistic
>> reduction.
>>
>> It's kind of like Fresnel said, "both aether and
>> not aether", as with regards to violations of
>> the gravitational/g-force equivalence principle
>> which happen all the time, and kind of like Einstein
>> said, "well yeah there's an aether".
>>
>> Then for space-contraction and this and that, and
>> about mass-energy equivalency, there are a variety
>> of considerations for "a severe abstraction to
>> mechanical reduction", giving that electrons move and
>> all without changing the mass, per se, of things,
>> where though the usual idea is that it's electron-holes,
>> with regards to displacement current and true current
>> or what, and "third current".
>>
>> Or, there's usually never "negative mass" in the
>> theory while yet electrons as the force carriers
>> in the electrostatic and electromagnetic, the theories,
>> have arbitrarily small rest mass.
>>
>> It's kind of like in electron orbitals and screening,
>> what starts working up cases after Wigner about
>> degeneracy and doublings, about Beta decay and
>> these kinds of things, why electrons would make
>> orbitals if they were constantly kind of bouncing
>> vis-a-vis that nucleons clump and electrons do not.
>>
>>
>> You mean that motion is relative? Well, yeah,
>> otherwise it would be rest. Define motion, then.
>>
>> Make it Mach-ian while you're at it.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks, GG. Reflect on this with regards to comment in physics.
>
> That's all that "relativity" theory is, that motion
> is relative, yet as well, in the Mach-ian, is that
> there's motion that's absolute, sort of about
> the star and pole-star, the frames,
> the frame-spaces the space-frames.
>
> You mean the L-principle that light's speed is
> constant in a deep space in vacuum? That's the
> L-principle as with regards to it being part
> of "relativity theory" it would have a mechanistic
> reduction.
>
> It's kind of like Fresnel said, "both aether and
> not aether", as with regards to violations of
> the gravitational/g-force equivalence principle
> which happen all the time, and kind of like Einstein
> said, "well yeah there's an aether".
>
> Then for space-contraction and this and that, and
> about mass-energy equivalency, there are a variety
> of considerations for "a severe abstraction to
> mechanical reduction", giving that electrons move and
> all without changing the mass, per se, of things,
> where though the usual idea is that it's electron-holes,
> with regards to displacement current and true current
> or what, and "third current".
>
> Or, there's usually never "negative mass" in the
> theory while yet electrons as the force carriers
> in the electrostatic and electromagnetic, the theories,
> have arbitrarily small rest mass.
>
> It's kind of like in electron orbitals and screening,
> what starts working up cases after Wigner about
> degeneracy and doublings, about Beta decay and
> these kinds of things, why electrons would make
> orbitals if they were constantly kind of bouncing
> vis-a-vis that nucleons clump and electrons do not.
>
>
> You mean that motion is relative? Well, yeah,
> otherwise it would be rest. Define motion, then.
>
> ...
>
> You've raised some intriguing points about the nature of motion,
> relativity, and the underlying mechanisms of physics. Let's delve into
> some of your observations:
>
> Motion and Relativity:
>
> Relative vs. Absolute Motion: You're correct that motion is relative.
> It's always defined with respect to a reference frame. However, this
> doesn't negate the existence of absolute motion. For instance, the
> Earth's rotation and revolution around the Sun are absolute motions,
> even though they're relative to other celestial bodies.
> Defining Motion: Motion is typically defined as a change in position
> over time. This definition, while straightforward, can be nuanced. For
> example, consider the motion of an electron in an atom. Is it truly
> moving in a well-defined orbit, or is it a quantum superposition of states?
>
> Relativity Theory and Its Implications:
>
> L-Principle and Aether: The constancy of the speed of light in vacuum is
> a fundamental postulate of special relativity. While it might seem
> counterintuitive, it has been experimentally verified numerous times.
> The concept of an "aether," a medium through which light propagates, was
> once popular but has been largely abandoned due to the lack of
> experimental evidence.
>
> Space-Contraction, Time Dilation, and Mass-Energy Equivalence: These are
> well-established consequences of special relativity. They have been
> experimentally verified and have profound implications for our
> understanding of the universe. However, as you point out, these concepts
> can be challenging to reconcile with our intuitive understanding of
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========